Determined Horse over-priced ...

[nikgaukroger]

Whilst I am minded I'll just raise this one again to see what another years playing has brought out, if anything.

I would suggest that it is probably Determined Horse (and therefore probably also Cavaliers) in general that are slightly overpriced, not Polish hussars in particular.

Anyway, we are not in a position to review points values at present, so that is something that will have to wait for some (undetermined) time in the future. And even then it would not be introduced without play-testing.

In conversation it was suggested that if Det Hse, Superior, Armoured, Pistol, Pistol cost the same points as Hse, Superior, Heavily Armoured, Pistol, Pistol it might be about right.

And there are other ways of dealing with the issue anyway - which really only arises because there are no Heavily Armoured Determined Horse.

So looking at the way that armour advantage works would be another way of dealing with the issue in the long term. (Which might be more acceptable to the publishers as it would not require any change to points values or army list books).

[timmy1]

Nik

I very much do think that they are either over priced or under effective. I have given lots of thought to this and not come up with a perfect solution but I think that the best one is

Determined Horse, Gendarmes, (and possibly Cavaliers) in formations 1 rank deep are 3 dice per base at impact (rather than 2). I say possibly Cavaliers because I have two ECW Parliamentary armies...

I think that this encourages historical battlefield behaviour (charging in shallow formations, even if charging at the trot) without doing violent damage to the system. If I ran a round of the SL I would certainly have it as a house rule for DH and GdA.

[madaxeman]

This weekend I came up against Det Hse with my Cuirassiers.

Det Hse fielded 2x2 sort of worked, but therefore should be equal points.....

[gibby]

I disagree. They have the flexibility to be 1 squadron deep as in 1 by 4 or 2 by 2. And can work in either formation.
Against the same armour,morale and weapon capability Horse, the Det Horse should edge it.
Yes equal on impact but thereafter the odds shift to the Det horse.

At most they are maybe a point over costed and in terms of the game lost in the margins.

If anything is under costed it's superior types of horse who re roll 1's and can take 50% more casualties than an average horse unit.

In my opinion that's why Det Horse are rarish. Sup HA PP Horse 64 points vs Arm Ave PP Det Horse 60 points.

I mean why would you.

cheers
Jim

[nikgaukroger]

In my opinion that's why Det Horse are rarish. Sup HA PP Horse 64 points vs Arm Ave PP Det Horse 60 points.

I mean why would you.

cheers
Jim

And if it were Sup HA PP Horse 64 points vs Sup A PP Det Horse 64 points ?

On the Average question - which is a wider one than just mounted IMO, but with 4 base units it cuts harder there - what would people think to all Average and Superior breaking on > 50% base loses?

[daveallen]

.If anything is under costed it's superior types of horse who re roll 1's and can take 50% more casualties than an average horse unit.

I make that 100% more casualties before they break.

On the Average question - which is a wider one than just mounted IMO, but with 4 base units it cuts harder there - what would people think to all Average and Superior breaking on > 50% base loses?

My view - it's a terrible idea. Alastair already runs rings round us, give him more resilient average cavalry and we might as well not turn up...

Seriously, I think there's a nice balance to the differential auto break based on quality. Although I do take Jim's point that superiority is probably undercoated for mounted.

Dave

[gibby]

I think we have to be careful here.

If we talk ECW then actually det horse vs Cavaliers works in my opinion.

If DHorse where the same cost as horse, you would definately see a lot more of them and they do have advantages over Horse in the way you can use them.
I guess the question is does the heavier armour poa in Melee equal the advantage of 2 figs per base in the front rank when not fighting as an overlap.

Jury is out but definately I would consider them for a role on the battlefield. Funnily enough , I fielded an Ave DHorse at the weekend for the first time because I thought for the points I was spending they could block a flank off against a numerically superior horse wing long enough for my foot to do the damage.

It might just be that the periods we have been playing has meant less choice and there has been a lot of early period stuff this year.

cheers
Jim

[nikgaukroger]

.If anything is under costed it's superior types of horse who re roll 1's and can take 50% more casualties than an average horse unit.

I make that 100% more casualties before they break.

True, Jim is looking at the casualties to break - well spotted

On the Average question - which is a wider one than just mounted IMO, but with 4 base units it cuts harder there - what would people think to all Average and Superior breaking on > 50% base loses?

My view - it's a terrible idea. Alastair already runs rings round us, give him more resilient average cavalry and we might as well not turn up...

Seriously, I think there's a nice balance to the differential auto break based on quality. Although I do take Jim's point that superiority is probably undercoated for mounted.

Dave

OK, so keeping it with mounted just for a moment - assuming that points cannot be changed (pretty much a given at present) what would you do to alter the complete no-brainer of taking Superior over mounted? I suggest it would be good for game balance if there were more of a decision process involved in this, and I doubt that changing the BG break point would damage historical representation.

[nikgaukroger]

Nik

I very much do think that they are either over priced or under effective. I have given lots of thought to this and not come up with a perfect solution but I think that the best one is

Determined Horse, Gendarmes, (and possibly Cavaliers) in formations 1 rank deep are 3 dice per base at impact (rather than 2). I say possibly Cavaliers because I have two ECW Parliamentary armies...

I think that this encourages historical battlefield behaviour (charging in shallow formations, even if charging at the trot) without doing violent damage to the system. If I ran a round of the SL I would certainly have it as a house rule for DH and GdA.

I don't think you could leave Cavaliers out of such a suggestion - they are, after all, only less controllable DH or Gendarmes with lesser armour. 3 impact dice for them would certainly be popular with those Louis XIV Impact Horse types ...

Fundamentally though I am not sure the historical record would support such a significant Impact phase advantage for these. I would suggest, for example, that early C16th cuirassiers had just as much impact as the later demi-cuirassier types, it is juts that formations changed.

[nikgaukroger]

I think we have to be careful here.

If we talk ECW then actually det horse vs Cavaliers works in my opinion.

I think that the vast majority of the interactions work (which is a relief for a rules author ), it is the balance that the points cost imposes that is the issue I think.

If DHorse where the same cost as horse, you would definately see a lot more of them and they do have advantages over Horse in the way you can use them.
I guess the question is does the heavier armour poa in Melee equal the advantage of 2 figs per base in the front rank when not fighting as an overlap.

Essentially, that is the question I am posing. (Of course points may not be alterable )

Jury is out but definately I would consider them for a role on the battlefield. Funnily enough , I fielded an Ave DHorse at the weekend for the first time because I thought for the points I was spending they could block a flank off against a numerically superior horse wing long enough for my foot to do the damage.

A use I have also considered, however, I'm not sure it is a very historical one as the main use for DH types (all things being equal and all that).

[gibby]

So in those terms, If Det Horse is the next evolution from Horse then in the same way that we have Horse cost relatively cheaper than Cav then maybe the cost for Det Horse should be cheaper to encourage that evolution.

cheers
Jim

[kevinj]

Given that points are not changeable the only solution is to alter the relative effectiveness of the troop types. The main problem seems to be in the interaction between HA Cuirassiers and lesser armoured DH so I think a change to the way that armour POAs work could be an answer. But I also agree that improving the relative effectiveness of Average mounted types would be good and I wouldn't have a problem with increasing their autobreak level.

As for use of Determined Horse, in my Anglo-Dutch Army their job is rear support, negating/creating threatened flanks and avoiding a fight at all costs. i'm not sure that's very historical either.

[vexillia]

Given that points are not changeable the only solution is to alter the relative effectiveness of the troop types.

Is this the slippy slope to v2?

[Three]

I've stopped playing with my Poles, I'm starting to resent 23pts a base Hussar units getting duffed over by stuff that costs approx. a third less. I've tried using my later Spanish with Superior DH, but am firmly of the opinion that it is a much stronger army with the Superior HA Horse, so my prefered option would be to reduce the cost of DH (substantially, but yes, I am aware that the consensus is that points changes are not an option). For Impact mounted/sword it's not just HA Kurassiers; eg light lance Samurai or Rajput cavalry are evens in impact and evens in melee, although pistol/pistol armoured DH are up in both and cost less.

Three dice at impact sounds attractive, especially for Impact Mounted, but wouldn't that skew the interaction between FA Gendarmes v HA Kurassiers with impact pistol ?

Given all that, I'd be happy to compromise and go with someone else's much earlier suggestion and allow DH to have 2 combat dice per overlap file.

Allowing average mounted to break on >50% is attractive, but would it be all mounted? 2 base LH units would be a monumental pain.

[kevinj]

Is this the slippy slope to v2?

I think the difference here is that at the moment most Fog R players are relatively happy with what we've got and are just looking to improve things rather than fix a game that many perceive to be broken.

[nikgaukroger]

Given that points are not changeable the only solution is to alter the relative effectiveness of the troop types.

Is this the slippy slope to v2?

I don't think either Richard or myself have any inclination to do FoG:R v2 - nor, IMO, is there the need or demand for such as there was with FoG:AM.

[nikgaukroger]

Allowing average mounted to break on >50% is attractive, but would it be all mounted? 2 base LH units would be a monumental pain.

IMO if there were to be a change to break points it would be best to make it universal and not just to mounted - KISS and all that. I guess it may be OK to apply it to Battle Troops only but given the choice I'd rather not introduce exceptions.

[kevinj]

2 base LH units would be a monumental pain.

Those would still autobreak on being reduced to 1 base as all 2 base BGs do.

[Three]

2 base LH units would be a monumental pain.

Those would still autobreak on being reduced to 1 base as all 2 base BGs do.

I was thinking about 4 base LH units reduced to 2 bases and being nearly impossible to catch.

[gibby]

I agree, the rules deliver a very good game.

If no v2 is in the offing, then actually, I think we should improve the artillery section and leave all other interactions the same.

Some of the issues described with points values etc can mostly be solved by tight themes or playing historically.

So for me the artillery is a must do and anything else is a nice to do.
cheers
Jim